Will Rand Paul Improve Liberty’s Prospects?

“Do you think supporting Rand Paul for President is good for liberty?”

Here is my incredibly unsatisfying answer: I don’t know.

Truly, I don’t. Neither do you. Why can’t we just admit this?

There is something about politics that elicits in everyone a faux sense of certainty. No matter how many times that political results contradict political promise, we still mostly pretend as if we know for certain what will happen when so and so wins. We know that Jim would be better than Jane, that Joan will be better than John, and so on. How do we know? How else? By what they say in the campaign, as if that is decisive. The truth is that rhetoric is not decisive.

I’m not saying that all politicians are liars, even if most are. The problem is more fundamental. No single elected official has the power to change the system. The system is, in fact, largely unelected. Their bureaucracies are massive. The regulations and legislation that empowers them are monumentally complex, impossible for any single mind or any one generation to comprehend. The process of reform is messy, structured so that it is highly unlikely that any change results in an overall net good for the cause of human liberty.

This is why there seems to be so little relationship between promised results and actual results. Reagan was going to cut the budget. It doubled and then tripled. Bush was going to have a humble foreign policy. Instead we went full imperial. Obama was going to break down the prison state and empower minorities. Instead, he added the surveillance state to the existing architecture of oppression. No matter how far you look back in time, you see a massive disconnect between the platform and the policies that emerged. The presidency of FDR is the paradigmatic case: a guy who ran on frugal government and no war gave us corporate fascism and entry into the second world war.

In the postwar period, there was one slice of time where good things all happened in a bundle. Trucking, airlines, and oil prices were all deregulated. Monetary policy shifted from loose to tight. Telecommunication deregulation was set in motion. We still benefit from these reforms today. Who was the impresario of these changes? The liberal Democrat Jimmy Carter, working in Congress through the offices of the liberal Democrat Teddy Kennedy? Who expected that?

Politics produces counterintuitive results. Under whose rule did we get the repeal of the national speed limit plus welfare reform, plus a nearly balanced budget? That would be Clinton.

Maybe you disagree with me. You can say, as bad/good as so and so was, the alternative would have been worse/better. Maybe. Maybe not. We’ll never really know because, in the world of politics and human action generally, there is no possible way to do a controlled experiment. One person’s opinion about what “would have happened” is as good as any other.

As for Rand Paul, I have no problem granting that he believes he has figured out the right way to make America a freer place for everyone. On paper, he looks better than any other candidate, so far. It’s wonderful that he is accepting Bitcoin. His economic program is sound. His outreach to diverse demographics: brilliantly overdue. His foreign policy seems slightly better than the alternatives.

But will he get his way? That’s an open question. The “deep state” is not going to respond well to a temporary manager who swears to put it in its place. The result can be the opposite of what Rand intends.

People who invest themselves in the presidency somehow never come to terms with the reality that under the democratic nation state, no man or woman is a dictator. In fact, real dictators are not even dictators. Even Nikita Khrushchev at the height of Soviet centralized power privately expressed nothing but frustration about his own inability to control or change the system. He once compared the system with a huge tub of dough. You punch it, squeeze it, manipulate it, but it pretty much stays the same.

There’s no doubt that most presidents feel the same.

Clarity about presidential reality comes with realizing the first big responsibility that a president has. He or she has to appoint 800 employees — subject to Senate confirmation — to pretend to run the government (pretend because lifetime bureaucrats mostly ignore political appointees).

Where do these people come from? To get them through the process and assure no scandal, they are drawn from 1) a pool of D.C. politicos who specialize in the affairs of government, 2) prominent and vetted supporters during the campaign, 3) big shots among the special interests that the new president favors. Immediately, all these new employees start receiving a government check, and suddenly have a stake in perpetuating and even expanding the institutions for which they work.

It’s a particularly weird job for a libertarian to accept, to say the least. Imagine, too, the potential downside to putting hundreds of the best libertarian minds going to work in government. Maybe some good will result. Or maybe the result is a brain drain out of the productive sector into the parasitic sector.

One way to think about government is as a giant corporation with its own interests to better its position and power. The president is the CEO. How do you do a good job and earn the support of the stockholders and customers? Not by cutting the budget, driving down the stock price, and pulling back its market share. Everything that hurts government as an institution will be resisted at all levels and in every conceivable way. You win by boosting the prospects of the state.

This is why it is such an enormous and implausible effort to use the presidency to enhance liberty. Everything we know about government pushes against this.

To see this reality requires that we look much more deeply at the problem than any debate or campaign can reveal. As entertaining as this season may be, we do well to keep in mind that politics is more about cosmetics than reality.

Those people who say that a President Rand Paul will save us or doom us are both wrong. We are all guessing, including Rand Paul himself. Therefore: let’s cool it on the saint making and witch burning and let the process play itself out. In any case, politics is most likely a lagging indicator of cultural, technological, and economic change — and in these sectors, there are very good reasons to be optimistic about liberty, regardless of whomever is ostensibly in charge.

A free society is built by you and me, beginning in our own lives. The digital age has given us better tools for doing this than we've ever had before. Become a citizen of the real free world and help us spread the message of liberty. Join Liberty.me today.

Jeffrey A. Tucker is Editorial Director for the American Institute for Economic Research. He is also a managing partner of Vellum Capital, CEO of the Atlanta Bitcoin Embassy, Senior Distinguished Fellow of the Austrian Economics Center in Vienna, Austria, Honorary Fellow of Mises Brazil, adviser to Acton Institute and Mackinac Institute, founder and Chief Liberty Officer of Liberty.me, an adviser to blockchain application companies, past editorial director of the Foundation for Economic Education and Laissez Faire Books, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, and author of many thousands of articles in the scholarly and popular press and eight books in 5 languages. He speaks widely on topics of economics, technology, social philosophy, and culture.

The Economics of Life Itself : Beautiful Anarchy is the writing platform of Jeffrey Tucker, in which he covers economics, art, popular culture, and politics from a pro-liberty, anti-state point of view.

I think another appropriate question might be, will rand be as effective a propagandist as his father? If his platform was to be even minimally acceptable to this constituency, he would be unelectable, so any reasonable utility he might offer to this group would be hiss effectiveness at ( spreading the net”, a task which his father discharged quite well.

Yeah I think this is crucial. At this stage and perhaps at anytime political action is rather useless. If Rand can be like his father who focuses on presenting a message rather than trying to win a rigged game, than he be would effective at “improving liberty’s prospects”.

Of course Rand will improve Liberty’s prospects. How much and how far depends upon many factors. He will lead by example and it will take time for a culture of “co-dependency” to evaporate; and there will be earthquakes moments instant Liberty. Brace yourself. If one does not think so, then perhaps that person is secretly loves “co-dependency”.

It’ll be interesting, to say the least, to watch 2016 unfold. If he makes it past the primary, I might actually vote for him. But that’s more than a year and a half away. Anything could happen by then.

Its very true that pinning all expectations on Rand is irrational. His effectiveness at achieving his aims will hinge on the congress that gets elected alongside him.

In all likelihood, Rand will have very little impact on the broad outcomes of the economy going forward.

However it seems to me that it is inherently better to have libertarian thought in mainstream spotlights rather than sidelined. If we’re going to have the same outcomes either way, we should probably prefer the one that gives our ideas more exposure.

Meh. I know this is a big issue for some anarchists, but it always struck me as mostly a red herring: voting doesn’t really matter one way or the other. I reject the Statist’s claim that somehow by voting I’ve “made a difference” or “had my voice heard”; likewise, I remain unconvinced by the position that by voting I’m propping up Statism. Ultimately, I care most about *people*, which is to say, I’m basically a pragmatist whose main goal is to have more people choose to interact with each other peacefully. I can’t see any way in which my not voting could lead to that result, whereas I can see at least a sliver of a chance that replacing a hardcore Republocrat with someone relatively libertarian-leaning could nudge things in that direction by lessening some of the violent acts of the US State (in particular, jailing nonviolent breakers of the “laws” such as prohibition).

It is not a matter of changing the system as much as living what you believe. If you believe in coercion, then vote. If you believe in liberty, then quit supporting a system that wants to deprive you of yours. A vote for a candidate or issue is a also a vote for a coercive system.

You say you want people to interact peacefully, yet you go to the polls to force your will upon others. That’s what voting is, and it is not a peaceful act. But perhaps your definition of peace is different than mine.

“It is not a matter of changing the system as much as living what you believe. If you believe in coercion, then vote. If you believe in liberty, then quit supporting a system that wants to deprive you of yours.”

Right, I’ve heard this before, and I still don’t find it compelling or persuasive. This just isn’t the way I think about things, as I think you are using terms and concepts that I find ill-defined and imprecise. I don’t “believe” in coercion or liberty: the word “belief” is problematic for me. I don’t “believe” in anything. I often *want* things, or I may think things, but I find the use of the term “believe” as a substitute for those to be a source of conceptual error. I also find “liberty” (and “freedom”) to be problematic, because they don’t refer to something, they loosely refer to the *lack* of something; when they are used to refer to an actual thing, as you have done here, it is my contention that a logical fallacy has crept into your reasoning, and from that, poor conclusions result.

Instead of saying that I “believe in liberty”, I would say it as I did: that I have a subjective preference to live amongst people who will not initiate violence against each other. It is my observation that Statism is by far the biggest source of the initiation of violence, and so I take the actions I feel that I can that have the most impact on bringing about the violence of Statism. As I said, I see no evidence to think that “Not Voting” has any chance to affect that change. I do see some reason that occupying the roles of the State with people who are generally aligned with reducing the violent use of the State might.

“A vote for a candidate or issue is a also a vote for a coercive system.”

Meh: that’s a cheap rhetorical trick in my opinion. You’re simply *stating* this unilaterally. I reject it. A vote for a coercive system would be a vote that asked me “do you prefer a coercive system”.

“That’s what voting is, and it is not a peaceful act.”

My soccer team voted last night on which formation we should use. That was not a peaceful act?

I think you’re conflating two very unrelated things. Voting itself is in no way a violent act; it’s the actual violent act that is violent. That the perpetrator of that violent act somehow blames that act on “voting” is not the fault of the voter. Imagine if you will someone who ties up a loved one of yours, holds a chainsaw to their arm, and says “you vote: do they lose their arm or their leg, and by the way, if you don’t choose either, then I will choose their head:” who is the perpetrator of the violent act, and who are their victims?

We are *victims* of Statism. It would seem that by your logic, a slave that accepted any housing or food from their master is “voting for slavery”.

“It is not a matter of changing the system as much as living what you believe.”

I think you’ve probably nailed the difference between us right there. I’m too much of a pragmatist to be satisfied by something as abstract as “living what you believe”. I want to affect change, or do my best to do so, because I care about all of the people whose lives are worse than they otherwise could be, most notably my daughter.

But absolutely, if what you care most about libertarianism is “living what you believe”, I have no judgment to pass on that. It’s just not for me.

Andy, a soccer team is an organization with voluntary members. They will not coerce, shoot, or kill you. If you don’t like what they do, you can opt out, and they will not come after you. The state is a coercive organization.
Consider this. If your entire city got together and voted to confiscate your car and give it to someone they deemed more in need than you, is that right? If you resist, what will happen to you? That’s democracy. When you vote, you are ultimately appointing who controls the gun. That is an observable fact.
I read your “Who Am I,” and you sound like a very open-minded person. We have the same goals in mind. We may just have to agree to disagree as to the best way to achieve those goals. Fortunately, there is probably more than one way!

“I read your “Who Am I,” and you sound like a very open-minded person. We have the same goals in mind. We may just have to agree to disagree as to the best way to achieve those goals. Fortunately, there is probably more than one way!”

Thank you Nancy… One of the reasons I value liberty.me as that I know that even when there are disagreements, I know I’m dealing with a decent person, a sincere person, one who I would gladly choose to voluntarily share a society with… And that makes it infinitely better than most venues for discussion. And yes, you are correct: there are different ways to approach this, and I certainly don’t *know* the best, so I’m glad to see us all take different approaches. I don’t completely reject arguments that say that participating in the activities of the State could be construed as indirectly contributing to the crimes of the State, which is why I say that I have yet to find the arguments about voting compelling rather than saying there’s no way they ever could be, though I’ve been down this road a bunch and I doubt something will suddenly snap for me. But you never know.

“Andy, a soccer team is an organization with voluntary members. They will not coerce, shoot, or kill you”

Right, this was my point: that it’s not voting that is “not a peaceful act”, as you claimed, but rather the violent actions of people and the organizations they form. Again I’ll say: we are *victims* of Statism and the State; we are not victims of my soccer team. I will not hold a victim liable for the crimes of their oppressors.

In many countries, voting is *compulsory* (as in, you can be jailed for not casting a vote, or at least fined, and if you don’t pay the fine… jail), and I just don’t see any way to say that the person who has been threatened with physical violence for not voting is somehow “guilty” for trying to avoid the violence of their oppressors. Attempting to vote in a less oppressive oppressor is acceptable self-defense in my opinion, and I have reason to think that Rand Paul as a fairly minarchist is that.

I agree completely. I struggle with the idea that working “within” a corrupt system automatically gives evil more power and diminishes liberty, or at best does nothing good.
I think blacks had more liberty after the Voting Rights Act, for example. If getting them to vote was just a way to hoodwink them into feeling they were making a difference, why the resistance to their participation in the first place?

Quite a few black people did not feel like they were more empowered after the Voting Rights act. Rather, many of us felt, and continue to feel, targetted by the state for ruthless treatment. We are charged much more often by police in many jurisdictions than our poroportional numbers in the populace should be if the sytem were equitable; we are convicted more often; we are put on death row more often. We don’t find these facts agreeable.
By all means, you should struggle with the idea of working within the corrupt system. Please struggle with that idea until you cease to contribute to the subjugation of others, since that is what your system is doing, all the time. Many political libertarians have worked very diligently within the system, even within the mainstream parties, long enough to learn that the system cannot be reformed. It cannot be reformed, Eric, because it is working as it was designed to work. The people who benefit from the system as it is won’t allow it to be “fixed.”

Many white people I have spoken to and corresponded with feel that voting is just a way to hoodwink them into feeling like they are part of a system that subjugates them, treats them as criminals, spies all the time on their activities, taxes/steals from them, and exists to promote the arbitrary preferences of those in power. Why would you expect black people to feel any differently?

Resistance to equal participation in the system by blacks, women, and various minorities arises from human character traits like racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. Legislation to ban those things cannot work, just as Prohibition could not work.

Surely, however, there is a difference between “working within the corrupt system” and taking 5 seconds to put a checkmark on a piece of paper and sent it in… the claim wasn’t that the system could be overthrown from inside, just disagreement with the claim that sending in a vote “does nothing good.”

I get the complaints that taking all of our activism resources and pouring it into working within the system may very well just be pouring those resources down the drain, but the “anti voting” crowd seems to be conflating that with, as I said, taking 5 seconds to put a mark on a piece of paper and send it in. Can’t I send in the vote on the off-chance that it makes something about the current system slightly less bad while still continuing to focus my energies on affecting change from outside the system?

Perhaps I am in some way misinformed. (“I came to Casablanca for the waters.”) But I recall my grandparents telling me about the time-consuming, difficult, and dangerous process of registering to vote in the 1940s in St. Louis. I gather that those seeking a driver licence in some states can be registered to vote without their further consent, as in news stories about Oregon recently. On the other hand, in other places, substantial documentation of citizenship is demanded, none of which rigmarole even gets one to the voting booth. Your estimate of 5 seconds is apparently exaggeration, or understatement, or somehow meant to ridicule those who won’t vote. There isn’t a farthing of difference ‘twixt Hillary and Rand. Both are controlled by major corporate campaign contributors. Voting won’t change anything, “or it would be illegal” per Emma Goldman. But, sir, it is MY time. Even if it were only 5 seconds and nobody ever followed me out of the voting place to burn a cross on my front yard, I still wouldn’t vote. How you use your time is your choice. Please don’t ever demand that I vote. You should not feel in any position to tell me what to do. And that, my Liberty.me colleague, is the most positive, pleasant, and friendly way I can respond at this time. Thank you for noticing that you don’t own me.

It is an accurate statement of how long it takes *me* to vote, per vote, given that I am already registered to vote. In Washington state, where I live, all voting is by mail, so I literally get something in the mail, check some boxes, and put it back in the mail, all while sipping a latte’ and still in my pjs.

“There isn’t a farthing of difference ‘twixt Hillary and Rand.”

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.

“Please don’t ever demand that I vote. You should not feel in any position to tell me what to do. Thank you for noticing that you don’t own me.”

I have no idea what you are talking about. I was defending my choice to vote. I could care less what you do. You might try being a little less defensive next time. As you said, this is liberty.me, not a place full of enemies and hate, and it’s patently offensive to be accused of wanting to “own” someone in a venue where you know that no one here believes that.

As I was defending my choice not to vote. Obviously, I do not know you. Equally, I made no accusation, as you so very falsely assert, but thanked you for noticing that you don’t own me. If you think I’m defensive, you should possibly review the beam of lumber protruding from your own eye. I’m really glad that you can fill out government forms with a refreshing beverage. Can you imagine me not wanting to? (“Can you imagine us in New York?”)

Agree. The rigging of the system against Ron Paul was SO blatantly obvious during the last GOP primary, the premature anointing of Rombama as “presumptive nominee” (???) by the “party”, it was a joke. We have carefully selected, approved “candidates” that we may vote for in order to perpetuate an illusion that we have control over our rulers, that “our” government is “us”. Why should I care whether I am managed and fleeced by approved overseer A or approved overseer B?
Even if mob rule were moral, which it’s not, there is no reason why half the people should be forced to live as the other half demands. It’s not logical.

I can’t help but feel that as much as Ron Paul was a gateway drug to anarchy, President Rand Paul will be listed under ‘reasons to avoid libertarianism’, not because he’s bad but because of all the ‘I don’t know’ Jeffrey elucidated on.

Rand Paul’s demagoguery on “radical Islam” instead of telling the truth about blowback, his attempted declaration of war on the Islamic State, his signing the Cotton letter and support for the Corker sanctions to attempt to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, his support for the Guantanamo Bay lawless prison, staying in Afghanistan and condemnation of Manning and Snowden reveal him to be a terrible person. He’s going to keep doing and saying horrible things and selling out all the good his father has done, and _all so he can lose anyway_. Rand’s calculation is that he can be everything to everyone, but he’s just going to end up nothing to nobody. (And all while he could have just been the best senator in world history by just doing his best impression of his father: honest and radical, instead of indulging his personal ambition.)

He’ll sell out any principle he was alleged to have and all for a chance to lose anyway. These aren’t little things. Each of them should be a deal breaker to a libertarian by themselves. They’re the kind of policies we’d expect for Jeb and Hillary. He is way over the line. Call it what you will.

Most excellent: you’ve recognized that what makes Statism so bad isn’t its attempt to tax or to punish behavior it doesn’t like, but *how* it does so: by initiating violence through kidnapping (“jail”). (I dabble in fiction and one of the things I’ve been exploring in that context is the possibility that a “State” that was constrained to never initiate violence would be simultaneously not actually a “State”, not in violation of libertarianism, and almost entirely ineffective. I find it an interesting thought experiment).

“under President Rand Paul? Will he call off the thugs from kidnapping you”

Does he have that power? As I said in another post, I’m not very conversant with exactly what a president can actually *do*, but it seems like the “checks and balances” in the system are pretty constraining.

“or pardon you for these non-violent acts?”

I think it’s possible, yes, though again, I don’t know nearly enough about the procedural details to know what constraints there are on his ability to do that.

In either case: would he be any worse on these things than the other possible presidential wannabes? Would I think he was a “terrible person” if he was doing all that he could to correct these things? I wouldn’t, no. Again, terrible people to me are murderers, rapists, assailants, kidnappers and the like… you may use the term as you prefer.

Sorry to jump in — Andy — what I’d love to see is a President use his/her power of clemency to, on a near-real-time basis, pardon anyone even ARRESTED for a non-violent crime. That would be fun, great to watch, and about the most real personal positive impact a President could have: neutering the Prison-State.

And he’s already been terrible for libertarianism, helping to define it as some sort of Ted Cruzian phenomenon of conservative populism instead of the perfection of old classical liberalism. I know Ron Paul did the same a bit, but he is so plum-line good on so many things it never got too out of hand I don’t think. But Reagan is a much closer comparison for Rand than Ron I think, though the media will keep calling him a libertarian no matter how much he denounces the term and calls himself conservative.

And the pressure from naive libertarians to support him no matter how bad he is on _some_ wars, etc., is going to be terrible for the movement as well. It’s in my twitter feed every day: “How can you not glom on to something good he said about Hillary years ago and flip flopped on already?!” they demand to know.

For my part, I just think he’s better than the other possibilities by orders of magnitude, while still being far away from what I would like. But the mainstream possibilities are that horrible. I mean, I’m an anarchist, I don’t even want presidents… but since that is unlikely to change between now and 2016, I’d still prefer to see Paul as President.

I don’t think Ron Paul will try to insist people support Rand. And if he did ask me for some reason I would just politely decline.

The real question is, how long before Rand outright denounces his father USSR-style? I hope Ron beats him to it, but of course, Ron would never do such a thing to his own family. Rand? Not sure what he’s waiting for.

(I’m only so down on the guy because of the massive quantity and quality of the opportunity he’s blowing in super-slow motion right before my very eyes. The counterfactual is just to blatant to ignore. It’s like a biblical-level catastrophe. An ancient Greek tragedy. Some damn politician.)

No one upsets us as much as those we think are (or should be) like us and then disappoint. I’m with you somewhat. Ron opened the door for Rand and I hate to see Ron’s allies attacking what may be the next step on the ladder toward making the US a better place. Even if it means we have to put up with half-assed libertarians before we start getting the really good ones in office. I know you think the crumby libertarians will destroy the brand first. I’m not convinced that the gradient approach is not the best way to drag the unwashed masses to the well.
Maybe there isn’t a plan an Rand is just a terrible person who didn’t listen to his dad. Let’s hope not.

Ron Paul was working within the political constitutionalist paradigm, statist for sure, but at least he was trying to promote a rule of some type of just/righteous law. I don’t think he expected to be elected, and I doubt he was surprised by the dirty tricks. He educated a lot of people, woke a lot of people up. His campaign revealed to me the complete evil and futility of politics and the truth of Hayek’s observation that the “worst always rise to the top”.
I find Rand pathetic. He wouldn’t be getting any of this publicity or attention if his name weren’t Paul. He is being used to give the illusion that there is something libertarian about the GOP. Fortunately, most people who would be impressed by the Paul name would not confuse Rand and Ron. If he would throw his own father, a truly good and principled leader, under the bus for a Zionist media anointed RINO, what would he do to people he doesn’t even know?

Rand Paul–bred libertarian. Now pandering to the ideologically confused “conservatives” who are the inertia of the Republican party while relying on the libertarian momentum to not get frustrated with him. Is this tactical? I bet it is. Is he strong enough ideologically to avoid the slippery slope to hell? I can hope, although it is but hope. He’s in a tough situation. If he stands pure ideologically, the inertia will prevent him from expanding the libertarian soapbox. If he is patient, and the libertarian momentum is patient through the primaries, then MAYBE, maybe, he can achieve a position in which his stance, his vote, on a war or invasion or drone assault actually matters, and then we hope that his moral ideology that he was bred to and has rationally practiced will come shining through.

Meanwhile, efforts should be spent not on politics, not on working to change the broken parasitic system. But rather on building a better humble construct. And let the good people of the world be attracted to a new humble moral system.

Marchella
I don’t think anybody could confuse Rand Paul as a ” liberty” candidate, he has cast himself as a populist, conservative republican. That does not mean that he could not be useful to freedom causes.
His father ran as a republican… but was very useful to the freedom movement. While I can not write Mr. Paul a campaign check, nor vote for him, I look forward to engaging in discussions with his supporters and detractors, in an attempt to move more folks inside our tent.
In the context of providing us the opportunity to engage in millions of discussions, Mr. Paul could help us, admittedly inadvertently, but we need to seize every opportunity
I supported Harry Browne actively ( wrote a check and actually voted) not because he was a viable candidate, but rather because he was useful in broadening the discussion.
My favorite candidate was Carl Hesse who said that in the highly unlikely event of his election, he would demand an immediate recount.

You would be surprised, I’m seeing a lot of libertarian/anarchist types being hoodwinked into thinking he’s a ‘liberty’ candidate because of his last name. That’s why political dynasties can be dangerous. I don’t know how he can be useful to “freedom causes” by watering down the message of liberty by expanding the role of government.

His tweet from yesterday: “The enemy is radical Islam.” This is fear-mongering, what makes them radical? Do you think drone striking/occupation might recruit these kinds of people? Also, you could go after Saudi Arabia for supporting radical Islam and their horrific record of human rights, but, no. There are many other things I could add here, but my main focus is seeing liberty advanced, not watered down to make people feel comfortable. Rick Rule

I’m sure people have run through this exercise already, but as I don’t really pay attention to the machinery of the State, I really don’t know: what could he actually do? My naive understanding is that he has unilateral power to pardon people: could he pardon all people in jail for nonviolent crimes, for example? Wouldn’t that be a nice little improvement for liberty? He’s the commander in chief, though unfortunately, he’s not as anti-interventionist as I’d like, but theoretically, couldn’t he greatly reduce the military footprint of his armies across the world?

It strikes me that one reason that Presidents often don’t achieve what they said they were going to achieve is because they want to enact *more* laws, not less, meaning they need the cooperation of Congress. Is that going to apply nearly as much to a libertarian-leaning President?

Sen. Rand Paul, on his worst, principle-compromised day, still will be light years better than anoly other Republican or Democrat regarding libertarian issues.

Even though it is unlikely that he will be the GOP presidential nominee, he will continue to offer insights usually from a libertarian persoective that will resonate with many Anericans; such as the failed War on Drugs and the accompanying disgraceful incarceration results, the YS feckless militarism, and “balance” to spending by cutting-this -n order-to-pay-for-that.

Being a successful libertarian politician in an unprincipled party run by amoral RINOs is daunting.

Rand Paul will no doubt make difficult deals to increase his chances of success.

That is politics.

That a viable libertarian candidate is a serious presidential option is something I never thought I would see in my lifetime.

Everyone who is liberty-minded can take positive actions and if the corrupt election process fails to prevent Rand Paul from becoming President then it is a guarantee that the liberty efforts will not be squashed.

Jeffrey, thank you again for another amazing and excellent essay. Your review and grasp of the facts of past political situations is excellent. A very good friend of mine once said that if we expect to solve the problems created by an excess of political activity through the application of yet more politics, we are expecting something that can never be.

The truth of the political system in the United States was apparent to my grandparents in St. Louis in 1950. They worked with other activists to desegregate the lunch counters in downtown St. Louis through individual action, appealing to the economic interests and personal dignity of the owners of the stores who ran those lunch counters. They worked with activists to encourage Washington University in St. Louis to admit black students. Eventually, that also happened. But these changes came very slowly, and were not accompanied by any admission at that time that the institutional racism they were experiencing ought to be changed. Indeed, racist policies or “Jim Crow” were not officially opposed at the federal leve until about 15 years later with, say, the voting rights act of 1965. Nor did my grandparents agree with laws to force businesses to change, believing that such laws would simply shift racism to an underground rather than a public expression from which it would be much harder to root out.

What I want is freedom, now. I don’t want whatever amount of freedom Rand Paul can arrange to wedge into a system of authority and oppression in 2017, should he happen to be elected. So, I’m working on being more free, experiencing less surveillance, and safeguarding my property and person, now. Today, there are many things that can be done to advance individual liberty. Why work on some political campaign? It seems like a poor choice in time management. People who want to change things by voting, or working on campaigns, are free to do so. But I don’t think they want freedom, now, very much.

On the one hand… you can try and change things by voting for a more libertarian style candidate like Rand.
On the other hand… by voting for any hose in the race, you legitimize a system that is fundamentally wrong.
One the third hand, Rick @rrule you make a good point “That does not mean that he could not be useful to freedom causes” – kind of like having a man on the inside. Which is sound, but still means…

On the one hand… expanding the message is a plus for the movement.
On the other hand… participating in a flawed system, again, gives it legitimacy and as @marchella says, dilutes the message.

“Reagan was going to cut the budget. It doubled and then tripled. Bush was going to have a humble foreign policy. Instead we went full imperial. Obama was going to break down the prison state and empower minorities. Instead, he added the surveillance state to the existing architecture of oppression.” [Add comment about noble peace prize winners bombing weddings etc]

So the solution is obvious… everyone support John McCain and he’ll probably be really freaking shite at being a war warmonger and the whole world will end up more peaceful. Just a thought…

what the mean of vote to Paul?
answer is : we accept DEMOCRACY and voting(I mean political vote to make a coercive and monopolist system as the stat) as the effective solution if we can be participate by our Candidate! !
its really ridiculous/paradoxical and Unethical position for who describe himself/herself or follower of Anarchy and I think anyone who reading Rothbard or know something about philosophy of anarchy he/she can not melting State-ism method and apparatus in any kind with anarchy. I am with Nancy about: Voting and liberty are mutually exclusive.

While I agree that government, least not a democratic one, is the antithesis of liberty, I do not think the Rothbardian view conflicts with political engagement. Ron Paul, a dear friend of the Mises Institute, used a political platform to bring countless Americans into the libertarian movement.

Good point about Ron Paul. Using a political platform to bring people into the libertarian movement, is a good thing. However, that doesn’t alter the fact that voting in a state election remains a coercive act.

I don’t pretend to know, and Rand Paul doesn’t know either. I supported his father, because I believed that Ron would radically restrain the use of U.S. military force abroad and use the veto to restrain police power at home. A POTUS has this authority.

I doubt that Ron could have effectively implemented other policies regardless of his preferences, and I didn’t necessarily welcome reforms that he might have enacted in compromises with the Congress, the sort of monetary reform that Larry White describes here as option 2 for example. These other effects of his Presidency concerned me less, because a U.S. President thankfully is not commander in chief of the economy or the money supply. At least, he isn’t supposed to be.

I have less confidence that Rand would exercise the Presidential powers he would actually possess as his father would have, and I have much less confidence that I understand the sort of compromises he’d make, so he’s practically as much of a black box as any other candidate. On the other hand, if he is elected, every “libertarian” basher will blame us for everything that goes wrong on his watch, and I might then need to find a new label for myself.

“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”
Samuel Adams

No matter how small, WE can be pressure in the right direction, no matter how imperfect the system or candidates. Taking our ball and going home only helps John McCain enjoy reading his breakfast paper more.

You seem to have included me in a pronoun as if it necessarily follows that because I am a member of Liberty.me and commenting on the “Beautiful Anarchy” publication page, I must be actively involved in presidential politics in the United States. “There is no ‘us.’ ‘We’ are an illusion.” ~ Grosse Pointe Blank, 1997.

Is John McCain running for president? Again? Really? Did not know. Or is he happy that Jeb Bush is running? Wouldn’t surprise me.

It may come as a surprise to you, Eric, sir, but it isn’t my concern whether John McCain enjoys his breakfast paper. Politics is a waste of time. I’m not going to waste my time with it. You should get used to that fact. It is not up to you how I spend my time. I’m not part of your collective. Best wishes for a future of freedom.

No. You have to judge the fruit. Rand endorsed Rombama over Ron Paul, and he endorsed him over his own father. Zero points for principle, zero points for loyalty. 100 points for political smarminess. Note the copious publicity Rand receives while his dad was blacked out and marginalized most of the time. He is an “approved” regime libertarian, pays lip service to limited liberty, but when the rubber meets the road, he’ll toe the line of the regime.

Rand Paul is a statist and a neo-con. Don’t believe so? If he is elected, you’ll find out. The fact that Rand endorsed Romney when his dad was still running says everything you need to know. That’s the kind of guy his is. Your enemy.

Democracy is slavery. Democracy is coercion and violation of individual rights. We can’t reach freedom through democracy nor any governmental system or process. The chances of Rand winning an election are close to zero, but even if he did win, I think he’d do a dis-service to the cause of liberty and libertarian-ism. It would have negative results.
Doug Casey makes it clear in this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryD5lqRM-Tw

Even if Rand Paul is elected president, he is only one man within a system set up to enslave anyway. Besides, I think there are better things we can support with our time and money such as donating food to the hungry or money towards development of a life saving vaccine. Just imagine for a moment if the billions of dollars spent on the election for a single position in government were used for actual constructive means.

Change cannot be effected working within the current system. It is set up to identify resistors and marginalize them/defuse them in various ways. Hearings are mandatory for “public input” which is ignored, sometimes laughingly, by those in charge, the public comments are limited by an egg timer, while bureaucrats bloviate endlessly on the necessity of whatever boondoggle they want taxpayers to be forced to finance, frequently the really important business is done behind closed doors, anyway. Make too much stink and they send SLAPP letters from their tax funded lawyer (strategic letter against public participation), threatening a lawsuit for a perceived “threat”, taxpayers pay for their lawsuits and you lose everything defending yourself. The newspapers are controlled by “community leaders” as well and often the account given in the paper does not reflect what happened at the meeting. Groups gradually are picked apart as divide and conquer is put into play. Some resistors are selected by representatives of the state and sweet talked, asked to assist on this committee or that because they are so “knowledgeable”, “reasonable”, etc. Others receive veiled threats of job loss. One by one eventually people give up because they have lives, bills, laundry to do, kids. These crats spend 8 hrs a day figuring out how to steal the poor mans lamb, and they have very deep tax payer funded pockets. Those who have never taken on City Hall should read up on the Delphi process as well. It’s not just voting, the entire system is rigged, totally. It pits us against each other as some curry favor thinking they won’t be targeted, and others who don’t “play the game” are targeted, fleeced, or just receive the dirty end of the stick, the highway down the middle of their neighborhood.

Rand will be the clean up man after this current corrupt system collapses. Although he won’t be perfect according to our standards, I think he will do a good job at bringing this nation back to its founding principles.